Aqua-Soft ForumsWhich one do you use and think is better? I use the 1.8 AppleRGB and I love it. It's more color accurate than 2.2 gamma. I wish PCs would switch to 1.8 (so that Macs and PCs would have 1.8 standard and no different colors when sending a photo from a Mac to a PC or a PC to a Mac) while others wish that Macs switch to 2.2 standard. What are your thoughts on this? Discuss.
1.8 or 2.2 Gamma for the Mac?
I've had my Winblows set at 1.8 since I stumbled across Adobe Gamma a few months back.
Once you go Mac (gamma), you never go back. Windows tends to feel dark and dingy in comparison (depending on the screen, of course, too).
I've had my Winblows set at 1.8 since I stumbled across Adobe Gamma a few months back.Once you go Mac (gamma), you never go back. Windows tends to feel dark and dingy in comparison (depending on the screen, of course, too).
I dunno about that, FIRST thing I do when i get my mac setup is switch the color profile stuff to the Windows one. I find the Apple ones too light/washed out.
I agree, but its not just Apple's profile -- Dell uses that same one on their laptop's. Even still, I do change the colour scheme to 9300K
If any of you use 1.8 Gamma on your computer, use AppleRGB profile because it's the best color calibration profile there is (at least for 1.8 gamma profiles).
I dunno about that, FIRST thing I do when i get my mac setup is switch the color profile stuff to the Windows one. I find the Apple ones too light/washed out.
Which is why I said it depends on the monitor, too. Some are brighter, causing the 1.8 to look washed out. Others, like my old crappy CRT, make the Windows gamma look like a tomb.
Guess it's a case of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"...and the monitor, of course.
I think you guys should try 1.8 AppleRGB. It would make a difference over Color LCD.